HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

ACQUISITIONS

DHS Could Better 

Manage Its Portfolio 

to Address Funding 

Gaps and Improve 

Communications with 

Congress

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2014

GAO-14-332

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-332, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2014

HOMELAND SECURITY ACQUISITIONS

DHS Could Better Manage Its Portfolio to Address 

Funding Gaps and Improve Communications with 

Congress 

Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, DHS invests billions of 

dollars in major acquisition programs. 

In fiscal year 2013 alone, DHS 

reported it was investing more than 

$9.6 billion in its major acquisition 

portfolio. In the past, GAO has 

identified shortcomings in DHS’s ability 

to manage its major acquisitions. In 

September 2012, GAO reported that 

the most prevalent challenge facing 

DHS’s major acquisition programs was 

funding instability—changes in 

programs’ funding plans over time. 

Funding instability increases the risk of 

cost growth, schedule slips, and 

capability shortfalls. 

In response to congressional requests, 

this report addresses (1) the 

prevalence of funding instability at 

DHS and its effects on major 

acquisition programs, if any; (2) the 

extent to which DHS develops multiyear funding plans in accordance with 

key portfolio management practices; 

and (3) the extent to which DHS has 

complied with reporting requirements 

for major acquisition programs’ multiyear funding plans. GAO reviewed

DHS’s three most recent annual 

funding plans and funding and 

acquisition decisions, interviewed 

headquarters and component officials, 

and solicited input from 35 of DHS’s 

largest acquisition program offices. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends DHS take nine

actions to better manage its portfolio 

and improve communications with 

Congress. DHS concurred with GAO’s

recommendations and stated that it 

addressed one in March 2014. DHS 

presented plans to address the other 

eight, but GAO does not believe the 

plan for one of them is fully responsive. 

What GAO Found

GAO found that the funding plans for all 35 of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) acquisition programs it reviewed changed to some degree from 

fiscal years 2012 to 2014, though the instability affected some programs more 

than others. Program officials reported that funding instability negatively affected 

17 of the 35 programs, contributing to schedule slips, cost growth, and capability 

reductions. DHS officials at headquarters, components, and program offices 

identified internal and external factors that contributed to funding instability. 

These included changes in department-wide priorities and congressional funding 

decisions. Going forward, DHS’s largest acquisition programs will likely 

experience more funding instability because the department’s plans for its 

acquisition portfolio are not currently affordable. In December 2012, DHS issued 

an internal memo stating that the department’s aggregate 5-year funding 

requirements for its major acquisition programs exceeded expected resources by 

30 percent. This acknowledgement was a positive step toward addressing the 

department’s funding gap, and DHS has established a full-funding certification 

requirement to help address it. Nevertheless, the department has not approved 

most of its major acquisition programs’ cost estimates. As a result, DHS’s 

understanding of its major acquisition programs’ funding requirements is limited, 

and the funding gap may be greater than the department has suggested.

DHS has not consistently developed its multi-year funding plans in accordance 

with key portfolio management practices that would help the department optimize 

the return on its acquisition investments. DHS’s resource allocation guidance 

reflects some but not all of these key practices, and the department is working to 

address the shortfalls. In addition, the 30 percent funding gap indicates that DHS

leadership has not effectively prioritized its acquisition needs, even though the 

department’s resource allocation guidance fully reflects this key practice. To help 

address its funding issues, the department is piloting a four-pronged portfolio 

management initiative intended to provide a framework for information to flow 

between four key councils and boards. As identified in the table below, there are

opportunities for DHS leadership to improve governance in each of these four 

management areas, but senior DHS officials do not expect the initiative will be 

fully implemented in the near term, so it is too soon to tell how effective it will be. 

Opportunities for DHS Leadership to Improve Governance in Four Management Areas

Strategic Direction Requirements Reviews Resource Allocation Program Governance

Provide planning 

guidance each year 

Establish priorities 

across functional 

portfolios

Recommend tradeoffs 

across DHS’s major 

acquisition portfolio

Assess programspecific affordability 

tradeoffs 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information.

DHS has met statutory reporting requirements for its major acquisition programs’ 

multi-year funding plans through its annual Future Years Homeland Security 

Program reports. However, the department has opportunities to improve how it 

communicates its acquisition funding needs to Congress in the future. Most 

notably, DHS does not currently link its major acquisition programs to the

homeland security strategy, and its annual report does not identify acquisition 

programs’ funding gaps. Adding this information would provide Congress

valuable insights into DHS’s acquisition funding needs. 

View GAO-14-332. For more information, 

contact Michele Mackin at (202) 512-4841 or 

mackinm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Letter 1 

Background 4

Many DHS Acquisition Program Offices Attribute Poor 

Performance to Funding Instability, Which Could Worsen in the 

Future 8

Key Portfolio Management Practices Could Help DHS Manage Its 

Acquisition Funding Gap 14

DHS Has Met Statutory FYHSP Reporting Requirements, but It 

Could Better Communicate Acquisition Funding Needs to 

Congress 21

Conclusions 26

Recommendations 26

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29

Appendix II Key Portfolio Management Practices 32

Appendix III Acquisition Funding Plan Charts 34

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 70

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 75

Tables

Table 1: Assessment of DHS’s Resource Allocation Guidance 

against GAO’s Key Portfolio Management Practices 15

Table 2: GAO Assessment of DHS’s Efforts to Meet Statutory 

FYHSP Reporting Requirements 21

Table 3: Dates DHS Submitted Budget Requests and FYHSP 

Reports to Congress 24

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Table 4: Planned, Requested, Enacted, and Revised Enacted 

Funding Levels Presented in the Acquisition Funding Plan 

Charts 34

Figures

Figure 1: DHS’s Annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and 

Execution Process 5

Figure 2: DHS Acquisition Life Cycle 6

Figure 3: DHS’s Acquisition Management Structure 7

Figure 4: Risk MAP’s Funding Plan—Changes from Fiscal Years 

2012-2014 10

Figure 5: Causes and Effects of Funding Instability Commonly 

Cited by DHS Officials 11

Figure 6: GAO-Identified Opportunities for Governance Bodies in 

DHS’s IILCM Initiative 17

Figure 7: Proportion of Major Acquisition Programs Identified in 

Recent FYHSP Reports 25

Figure 8: Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 35

Figure 9: Border Patrol Facilities 36

Figure 10: Facilities Management & Engineering (FM&E) Tactical 

Infrastructure 37

Figure 11: Land Border Integration (LBI) 38

Figure 12: Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Systems Program 39

Figure 13: Strategic Air and Marine Plan (STAMP) 40

Figure 14: Mobile Assets Program (MAP) 41

Figure 15: Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN) 42

Figure 16: Infrastructure Transformation Program (ITP) 43

Figure 17: Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning (Risk MAP) 44

Figure 18: IT Infrastructure 45

Figure 19: National Cybersecurity and Protection System (NCPS) 46

Figure 20: Next Generation Network Priority Service (NGN-PS) 47

Figure 21: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 

Technology (US-VISIT) 48

Figure 22: BioWatch Gen-3 49

Figure 23: National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures 

Center (NBACC) Facility 50

Figure 24: National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) 51

Figure 25: Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) 52

Figure 26: Information Technology Infrastructure Program (ITIP) 53

Figure 27: Passenger Screening Program (PSP) 54

Figure 28: Secure Flight 55
Page iii GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 29: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing 

(TWIC) 56

Figure 30: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 57

Figure 31: Fast Response Cutter (FRC) 58

Figure 32: Long Range Surveillance Aircraft (HC-130H/J) 59

Figure 33: HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) 60

Figure 34: HH-60 Conversion Projects 61

Figure 35: HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects 62

Figure 36: Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment 63

Figure 37: National Security Cutter (NSC) 64

Figure 38: Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS) 65

Figure 39: Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) 66

Figure 40: Rescue 21 67

Figure 41: Response Boat-Medium (RB-M) 68

Figure 42: Transformation 69
Page iv GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Abbreviations:

ADE Acquisition Decision Event

ARB Acquisition Review Board

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CIO Chief Information Officer

ConOps Concept of Operations

CRC Capabilities and Requirements Council

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FYHSP Future Years Homeland Security Program 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IILCM Integrated Investment Life Cycle Management

IPG Integrated Planning Guidance

IT Information Technology

JRC Joint Requirements Council

The manual DHS Instruction Manual 102-01-001 Acquisition 

Management Instruction/Guidebook

MD 102 DHS Acquisition Management Directive 102-01

NPPD National Protection and Programs Directorate

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PA&E Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation

PARM Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management

PPBE Planning, programming, budgeting, and execution

PRB Program Review Board

Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning

TSA Transportation Security Administration

USM Under Secretary for Management 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 17, 2014

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jeff Duncan

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invests extensively in 

acquisition programs to help execute its many critical missions. DHS and 

its underlying components are acquiring systems to help secure the 

border, increase marine safety, screen travelers, enhance cyber security, 

improve disaster response, and execute a wide variety of other 

operations. DHS’s major acquisition programs are typically expected to 

cost at least $300 million and span several years. To help manage these 

programs, DHS develops multiyear funding plans establishing the 

programs’ resource requirements going forward. In 2011, DHS reported 

to Congress that it planned to ultimately invest $167 billion in its major 

acquisition programs. In fiscal year 2013 alone, DHS reported it planned 

to spend more than $9.6 billion on these programs, including all 

acquisition, planning, maintenance, and investment support costs. 

We have highlighted DHS acquisition management issues in our high-risk 

list since 2005.1 Over the past several years, our work has identified 

significant shortcomings in the department’s ability to manage an 

expanding portfolio of major acquisitions.2

 

1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, 

For example, in September 

GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005).

2

For examples, see GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Requires More Disciplined Investment 

Management to Help Meet Mission Needs, GAO-12-833 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 

2012); Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex 

Acquisitions, GAO-10-588SP (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010); and Department of 

Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs Lack Appropriate Oversight, 

GAO-09-29 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2008). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

2012, we reported that 43 of 63 major acquisition programs lacked a 

department-approved baseline, which establishes a program’s cost, 

schedule, and performance goals.3 We also reported that program 

officials identified funding instability as the most prevalent challenge 

facing DHS’s major acquisition programs. Funding instability occurs when 

a program’s multiyear funding plan changes over time—either increases 

or decreases—and the program manager may have to make repeated 

adjustments to the program as a result. In the past, we have found that 

funding instability increases the risk of cost growth, schedule slips, and 

capability shortfalls.4

In response to our previous recommendations, DHS has taken steps to 

improve acquisition management by dedicating additional resources to 

acquisition oversight and documenting major acquisition decisions in a 

more transparent and consistent manner. However, many of our 

recommendations remain open, including our recommendation that DHS 

prioritize its major acquisition programs department-wide and ensure that 

its acquisition portfolio is consistent with anticipated resource 

constraints.

While our prior report identified funding instability as 

a factor contributing to these problems, the scope of that report did not 

include an assessment of the extent to which funding profiles had 

changed over time for individual programs or the specific impacts of those 

changes on program outcomes.

5

You asked us to assess how DHS uses multiyear funding plans to sustain 

the department’s acquisition efforts. Specifically, this report addresses (1) 

the prevalence of funding instability at DHS, and its effects on major 

acquisition programs, if any; (2) the extent to which DHS develops 

multiyear funding plans in accordance with key portfolio management 

practices; and (3) the extent to which DHS has complied with reporting 

requirements for its major acquisition programs’ multiyear funding plans.

To determine the specific impacts of funding instability on DHS’s major 

acquisition programs, if any, we identified how annual funding levels for 

35 of the department’s 40 largest acquisition programs changed across 

 

3

GAO-12-833. 

4

GAO, Best Practices: Better Matching of Needs and Resources Will Lead to Better 

Weapon System Outcomes, GAO-01-288 (Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2001).

5

GAO-12-833. 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 Future Years Homeland Security 

Program (FYHSP) reports, which present 5-year funding plans for DHS’s 

major acquisition programs.6 Officials identified errors in the FYHSP 

reports for 18 of the 35 programs, and we corrected these errors when 

conducting our analysis. We did not assess 5 of the 40 programs 

because they did not appear in two or more of DHS’s FYHSP reports, and 

thus we were unable to analyze any changes to funding levels over time. 

We also collected testimonial evidence about the causes and effects of 

funding instability from all 35 of the program offices in our scope. To 

determine the extent to which DHS develops multiyear funding plans in 

accordance with key portfolio management practices, we compared the 

department’s resource allocation guidance to key practices we 

established in a September 2012 report and identified any significant 

gaps.7 Additionally, we interviewed acquisition and financial management 

officials at DHS headquarters and nine components that sponsor 39 of 

DHS’s 40 largest acquisition programs to understand DHS’s process for 

developing multiyear funding plans.8

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to April 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We also reviewed funding and 

acquisition management decisions. To determine the extent to which 

DHS has complied with reporting requirements for its major acquisition 

programs’ multiyear funding plans, we assessed the fiscal years 2012, 

2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports against requirements established in U.S. 

Code and congressional reports. We also interviewed DHS officials 

responsible for producing the FYHSP reports.

 

6

For example, the fiscal year 2012 FYHSP report included funding plans for fiscal years 

2012 through 2016.

7

We established GAO’s key portfolio management practices in GAO-12-833. See app. II. 

8

We did not interview acquisition and financial management officials from the Office of 

Health Affairs because it only sponsored 1 of DHS’s 40 largest acquisition programs: 

BioWatch. However, we did collect testimonial evidence from the BioWatch program office 

directly, and that information is included in our analysis. 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Since fiscal year 2005, DHS has been required by federal law to issue 

annual reports identifying estimated expenditures and proposed 

appropriations for, among other things, major acquisition programs for the 

current budget year and the four succeeding fiscal years.9 Among other 

things, these reports identify how the department’s major acquisition 

programs’ multiyear funding plans change from year to year. DHS 

leverages two management systems to develop these funding plans: (1) 

the resource allocation system and (2) the acquisition management 

system. 

DHS has established a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution 

(PPBE) process to allocate resources. DHS’s PPBE process produces 

the multi-year funding plans presented in the Future Years Homeland 

Security Program (FYHSP), a database that contains, among other 

things, 5-year funding plans for DHS’s major acquisition programs. DHS 

guidance states that the 5-year plans in the FYHSP should allow the 

department to achieve its goals more efficiently than an incremental 

approach based on 1-year plans. DHS guidance also states that the 

FYHSP articulates how the department will achieve its strategic goals 

within fiscal constraints.

According to DHS guidance, at the outset of the annual PPBE process, 

the department’s Office of Policy and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 

should provide planning and fiscal guidance, respectively, to the 

department’s 16 component agencies, such as Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the 

National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In accordance 

with this planning and fiscal guidance, the components should produce 5-

year funding plans that are submitted to the CFO and reviewed by DHS’s 

senior leaders, including the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary. 

DHS’s senior leadership is expected to modify the plans in accordance 

with their priorities and assessments, and submit them to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), which uses the plans to inform the 

President’s annual budget request. Figure 1 depicts DHS’s annual PPBE 

process.

 

9

6 U.S.C. § 454 establishes that the FYHSP is DHS’s 5-year funding plan for programs 

approved by the Secretary that are to support the department’s strategic plan.

Background

Resource allocation 

system
 

Page 5 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 1: DHS’s Annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process

Federal law requires DHS to submit an annual FYHSP report to Congress 

at or about the same time as the President’s budget request. This FYHSP 

report presents the 5-year funding plans in the FYHSP database at that 

time.

Within DHS’s Office of the CFO, the Office of Program Analysis and 

Evaluation (PA&E) is responsible for establishing policies for the PPBE 

process and overseeing the development of the FYHSP.10 In this role, 

PA&E reviews the components’ 5-year funding plans, advises DHS’s 

senior leaders on resource allocation issues, maintains the FYHSP 

database, and submits the annual FYHSP report to Congress. PA&E also 

coordinates with DHS’s Office of Policy on the department’s long-term 

strategic planning efforts, analyzing budget submissions, cost estimates, 

and resource constraints.

 

10DHS is required by law to include the same type of information, organizational structure, 

and level of detail in the FYHSP as the Department of Defense is required to include in its 

Future Years Defense Program. 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

DHS Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 (MD 102) and DHS 

Instruction Manual 102-01-001 Acquisition Management 

Instruction/Guidebook (the manual) establish the department’s policies 

and processes for managing major acquisition programs. MD 102 

provides guidance to program managers to help determine funding 

needs, capability requirements, and schedule; the manual establishes 

that acquisition decision authorities shall ensure these program managers 

have the funding needed to successfully execute their acquisition 

programs. DHS’s Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Management 

(USM) serve as the decision authorities for the department’s largest 

acquisition programs: those with life-cycle cost estimates of $1 billion or 

greater. Component Acquisition Executives—the most senior acquisition 

management officials within the respective components—may serve as 

the acquisition decision authorities for programs with cost estimates 

below $1 billion. MD 102 establishes that a major acquisition program’s 

decision authority shall review the program at a series of five 

predetermined Acquisition Decision Events (ADE) to assess whether a 

major program is ready to proceed through acquisition life-cycle phases. 

Figure 2 depicts the acquisition life cycle established in MD 102.

Figure 2: DHS Acquisition Life Cycle

In addition to serving as the decision authority for certain large programs, 

the USM also serves as DHS’s Chief Acquisition Officer, and in this role is 

responsible for the management and oversight of the department’s 

acquisition policies and procedures. The USM is supported by DHS’s 

Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM), which is 

responsible for DHS’s overall acquisition governance process.

Additionally, program managers within DHS’s components are 

Acquisition management 

system
 

Page 7 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

responsible for their respective acquisition programs. Figure 3 depicts 

DHS’s acquisition management structure.

Figure 3: DHS’s Acquisition Management Structure
 

Page 8 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

The funding plans for all 35 of the acquisition programs we reviewed 

changed to some degree from fiscal years 2012 to 2014, although the 

instability affected some programs more than others. DHS headquarters 

officials explained that the effects of funding plan changes can vary based 

on the type of program and where it is in the acquisition life cycle. About 

half of the program offices reported that funding instability contributed to 

poor performance: schedule slips, cost growth, and capability reductions. 

For example, funding instability delayed one program responsible for 

raising public awareness of natural disaster risks, and increased 

construction costs for a facility that tests for animal diseases. DHS 

officials at headquarters, components, and program offices identified 

internal factors—such as changes in department-wide priorities—and 

external factors—such as continuing resolutions—that contributed to the 

funding instability.11 Going forward, DHS’s largest acquisition programs 

will likely experience more funding instability because the department’s 

plans for its major acquisition portfolio are not currently affordable. In 

December 2012, DHS issued an internal memo stating that the 

department’s aggregate 5-year funding requirements for its major 

acquisition programs exceeded expected resources by 30 percent. This 

acknowledgement was a positive step toward addressing the 

department’s funding gap, and DHS has established a full-funding 

certification requirement to help address it. Nevertheless, the department 

has not approved most of its major acquisition programs’ cost estimates. 

As a result, DHS’s understanding of its major acquisition programs’ 

funding requirements is limited, and the funding gap may be greater than 

the department has suggested.

 

11A continuing resolution is an appropriation act in the form of a joint resolution enacted by 

Congress and signed into law by the President to provide budget authority for Federal 

agencies, specific activities, or both to continue in operation until the regular appropriation 

acts are enacted.

Many DHS 

Acquisition Program 

Offices Attribute Poor 

Performance to 

Funding Instability, 

Which Could Worsen 

in the Future
 

Page 9 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

We assessed the funding plans for 35 of DHS’s largest acquisition 

programs over a 3-year period through an analysis of the department’s 

fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports. We found that the 

funding plans for all 35 of the programs changed to some degree during 

that time.12

Seventeen of the 35 program offices reported that funding plan changes 

contributed to schedule slips, cost growth, or capability reductions, 

creating instability for their programs. Officials from 15 of the 17 programs 

reported schedule slips or the need to resequence the delivery of 

capabilities, 8 reported cost growth, and 7 reported capability reductions. 

For example, officials from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning (Risk MAP) program told 

us that this funding instability has delayed program implementation. The 

$4 billion Risk MAP program is designed to deliver data that raise public 

awareness of natural hazards in order to reduce risks to people and 

property. Figure 4 illustrates how the Risk MAP program’s funding plan 

changed across the 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports.

However, we did not find that the degree of the change 

dictated the magnitude of any resulting effects. We discussed the effects 

of funding plan changes with officials at all levels of DHS—headquarters, 

components, and programs—to gain an understanding of why certain 

programs were negatively affected while others were not. DHS 

headquarters officials told us the effects of funding plan changes can vary 

based on the type of program and where it is in the acquisition life cycle, 

and that as a result, certain programs can manage the changes more 

easily than others. For example, these officials told us that funding plan 

changes have a more negative effect on programs that need to develop 

technologies prior to production, or require multiyear production efforts. 

DHS officials also stated that programs in the planning phase can 

manage funding plan changes more easily than programs that are in 

production or deployment. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

officials told us that their programs were not negatively affected by 

funding plan changes because the agency had flexibility in how it 

allocated its appropriations and leveraged carryover funds.

 

12Appendix III presents charts for all 35 of the acquisition programs we reviewed, 

identifying how their funding plans changed across the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 

FYHSP reports.

Almost Half of DHS’s 

Largest Acquisition 

Programs Reported that 

Funding Instability 

Contributed to Schedule 

Slips, Cost Growth, or 

Capability Reductions
 

Page 10 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 4: Risk MAP’s Funding Plan—Changes from Fiscal Years 2012-2014

Note: The Risk MAP funding plan includes planning, acquisition, maintenance, and personnel 

funding. DHS did not delineate between these four funding categories in its fiscal year 2013 FYHSP 

report, but it did so in the fiscal year 2012 and 2014 reports, and it plans to do so in the fiscal year 

2015 report. Table 4 in app. III identifies what each of the values in the funding plan chart represents 

in terms of planned, requested, enacted, and revised enacted funding levels.

In this example, the Risk MAP program’s funding plan changed 

considerably across the three 5-year timeframes. The largest change to 

the program’s funding plan occurred between the fiscal year 2012 and 

2014 FYHSP reports, and it reduced the program’s fiscal year 2014 

funding level by 38 percent. This translated to a $128 million reduction 

from what the program office had previously expected to receive in fiscal 

year 2014. In addition, the program’s planned funding level for fiscal year 

2015 decreased by more than $89 million from the fiscal year 2012 

FYHSP to the 2014 FYHSP.

In another example, the $5.7 billion National Bio and Agro-Defense 

Facility program office, which is constructing a facility that tests for animal 

diseases, reported that funding instability has delayed facility construction 

and increased projected construction costs. Additionally, funding 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

instability caused CBP’s $6.3 billion Border Patrol Facilities program to 

defer maintenance and capital investments to replace outdated 

structures. Sidebars throughout this report present six other examples of 

how funding instability has impacted some of the 17 programs.

DHS personnel at different levels within the department identified internal 

and external causes of funding instability. In some cases, these causes 

may be proactive decisions, driven by poor program performance or 

agency reprioritization, but in other cases, they are not. Internal causes 

include changes in the department’s mission and priorities, poor program 

cost estimates, and requirements changes. External causes include 

continuing resolutions and congressional funding decisions. Figure 5 

presents the causes and effects of funding instability commonly cited by 

DHS officials.

Figure 5: Causes and Effects of Funding Instability Commonly Cited by DHS Officials

In December 2012, DHS’s CFO issued an internal memo stating that the 

aggregate 5-year funding requirements for the department’s major 

acquisitions would likely exceed available resources by approximately 30 

percent from fiscal years 2014 to 2018. This acknowledgment was a 

positive step toward addressing the department’s challenges in that it 

clearly identified the need to improve the affordability of the department’s 

plans for its major acquisition portfolio. Additionally, to help address the 

acquisition funding gap, the memo requires that components’ senior 

financial officers certify that their major acquisition programs have 

adequate resources to execute their programs through the 5-year FYHSP 

period. In 2013, DHS certified that six major acquisitions met this 

DHS May Face More 

Funding Instability in the 

Future Because Its Major 

Acquisition Portfolio Is Not 

Currently Affordable
 

Page 12 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

requirement and were fully funded. It is unlikely, however, that DHS can 

close the acquisition funding gap without making tradeoff decisions that 

will create additional funding instability. As a result, some of DHS’s 

largest acquisition programs could experience schedule slips and cost 

growth over the next 5 years, which is likely to affect the department’s 

ability to deliver as much capability as previously planned.

From fiscal years 2003 to 2013, DHS’s budget nearly doubled—from 

$31.2 to $60.7 billion—and DHS leadership did not consistently address 

affordability issues during that time. DHS headquarters officials told us 

that acquisition decision authorities allowed programs to proceed with 

acquisition activities without proposing plans to address significant 

funding gaps. We have previously reported that an agency generally has 

two options for addressing affordability issues when a program faces a 

funding gap: (1) modify the program’s capability requirements to meet its 

funding constraints, or (2) modify the program’s funding plans to meet 

existing requirements.13

Additionally, according to DHS headquarters personnel, DHS leadership 

was not aware of some programs’ funding gaps because component and 

program officials did not consistently identify all expected costs. 

Headquarters personnel explained it was difficult to hold program offices 

accountable for understating costs early in the acquisition life cycle 

because DHS has had high levels of program manager turnover. 

Furthermore, many programs lacked approved baselines, which formally 

establish cost estimates and are necessary to accurately assess program 

performance. In September 2012, we recommended that DHS modify its 

acquisition policy to state that program managers should remain with their 

programs until the next major milestone when possible. We also 

recommended that the USM approve all major acquisition program 

baselines.

However, DHS leadership did not consistently 

direct unaffordable programs to pursue such options.

14

 

13GAO, Cost Guard: Portfolio Management Approach Needed to Improve Major 

Acquisition Outcomes, 

DHS has not yet addressed the first recommendation and 

while it has made progress in addressing the second recommendation, as 

GAO-12-918 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2012). 

14GAO-12-833. 

FUNDING INSTABILITY IMPACT

Program Name: National Security Cutter 

Component: Coast Guard 

Program Description: Replaces the High 

Endurance Cutter, which performs law 

enforcement, defense, and search and rescue 

operations

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $24.3B 

Effect of Funding Instability: Contributed to 

production delays and cost growth
 

Page 13 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

of November 2013, DHS officials reported that 21 of 46 programs still 

lacked approved baselines.15

In 2013, DHS made little progress in addressing the department’s major 

acquisition funding gap, and, based on our analysis of the department’s 

cost estimates, this gap may be even greater than DHS has suggested. In 

December 2013, PA&E officials told us that DHS’s major acquisition 

funding gap remained approximately 30 percent—the same size identified 

in the DHS CFO’s December 2012 memo. However, we found this figure 

is based on unreliable cost estimates, which have been an enduring 

challenge for DHS.16

Going forward, DHS officials anticipate the department’s budget will grow 

more slowly than it has in the past, and perhaps even shrink in future 

years. For example, the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2014 

was $726 million less than the 2013 level. As a result, it is unlikely DHS

will be able to close its major acquisition funding gap without further 

modifications to its largest acquisition programs’ funding plans.

DHS recognizes the need to improve its cost 

estimates, and in December 2013, PARM officials told us they had 

approved the life cycle cost estimates for 20 of the department’s major 

acquisition programs, which currently number 88. They told us they are 

focused on first developing life-cycle cost estimates for acquisition 

programs that are in the Obtain phase and are expected to cost more 

than $1 billion. However, the PARM officials explained that DHS still 

needs to increase its cost estimating capacity because the department 

does not have enough resources to produce cost estimates for all of 

these programs. Additionally, once these cost estimates are approved, 

PARM officials stated that the estimates should be revisited annually. 

They explained that cost estimates should account for real world 

changes, and that major acquisition programs should update their cost 

estimates each year to ensure DHS’s annual resource allocation process 

is informed by current cost data. DHS officials stated they have taken

steps to increase their cost estimating capabilities by establishing a cost 

estimating Center of Excellence and hiring additional cost estimators.

 

15In May 2013, the USM waived the baseline requirement for 42 additional programs 

because they were in the sustainment phase. 

16In GAO-12-833, we reported that only 12 of the 71 major acquisition programs we 

reviewed met most of DHS’s criteria for reliable cost estimates. 

FUNDING INSTABILITY IMPACT

Program Name: Next Generation Network 

Priority Service 

Component: NPPD

Program Description: Provides priority 

telecommunications capabilities

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $696M

Effects of Funding Instability: Delayed 

capability deliveries; further funding 

reductions could cause a schedule breach, 

and technology could be obsolete by the time 

it is fielded 
 

Page 14 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

DHS has not consistently developed its multiyear funding plans in 

accordance with key portfolio management practices we have identified 

that would help the department optimize the return on its acquisition 

investments. DHS’s resource allocation guidance reflects some but not all 

of these key practices, and the department has developed a Portfolio 

Governance Concept of Operations (ConOps) that could improve its 

guidance. In addition, DHS’s 30 percent funding gap indicates that its 

leadership has not effectively prioritized its acquisition needs, even 

though the department’s resource allocation guidance fully reflects this 

particular key practice. The department is working to improve portfolio 

management and better prioritize its acquisition funding needs through a 

four-pronged Integrated Investment Life Cycle Management (IILCM) pilot. 

The IILCM is intended to provide a framework for information to flow 

between councils and boards responsible for (a) strategic direction, (b) 

requirements reviews, (c) resource allocation, and (d) program 

governance. There are opportunities for DHS leadership to improve 

governance in each of these four management areas, but senior DHS 

officials do not expect the IILCM will be fully implemented in the near 

term, so it is too soon to tell how effective it will be.

DHS’s resource allocation guidance reflects some key portfolio 

management practices that would help the department optimize the return 

on investments as it manages its acquisition funding issues, but it does 

not fully reflect others.17 In our past work, we have found that successful 

commercial companies use a disciplined and integrated approach to 

prioritize needs and allocate resources.18

 

17DHS’s resource allocation guidance is established in two key documents: Management 

Directive Number 1330 (MD 1330) and DHS’s PPBE Operating Handbook. MD 1330, 

which was issued in February 2005, constitutes DHS’s formal resource allocation 

guidance. MD 1330 is supplemented by the more recently issued PPBE Operating 

Handbook, which was revised in June 2012.

As a result, these organizations 

can avoid pursuing more projects than their resources can support and 

better optimize the return on their investments. This approach, known as 

portfolio management, requires companies to view each of their 

investments as contributing to a collective whole, rather than as 

independent and unrelated. With this perspective, companies can 

effectively (1) identify and prioritize opportunities, and (2) allocate 

18GAO, Best Practices: An Integrated Portfolio Management Approach to Weapon System 

Investments Could Improve DOD’s Acquisition Outcomes, GAO-07-388 (Washington, 

D.C.: March 30, 2007).

Key Portfolio 

Management 

Practices Could Help 

DHS Manage Its 

Acquisition Funding 

Gap

DHS’s Resource Allocation 

Guidance Reflects Some 

but Not All Key Portfolio 

Management Practices
 

Page 15 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

available resources to support the highest priority—or most promising—

opportunities. Over the past several years, we have examined the 

practices that private and public sector entities use to achieve a balanced 

mix of new projects, and based on this work, we identified four key 

practice areas for portfolio management.

Table 1 presents our assessment of DHS’s resource allocation guidance 

against our key portfolio management practices.

Table 1: Assessment of DHS’s Resource Allocation Guidance against GAO’s Key 

Portfolio Management Practices

Key practice area Summary of key practices

Resource 

allocation 

guidance

Clearly define and empower 

leadership

Portfolio managers, with the support of 

cross-functional teams, should be 

empowered to make investment decisions 

and held accountable for outcomes.



Establish standard assessment 

criteria and demonstrate 

comprehensive knowledge of 

the portfolio

Investments should be ranked and 

selected using a disciplined process to 

assess the costs, benefits, and risks of 

alternative products to ensure 

transparency and comparability across 

alternatives.

〇

Prioritize investments by 

integrating the requirements, 

acquisition, and budget 

processes

Organizations should use long-range 

planning and an integrated approach to 

prioritize needs and allocate resources in 

accordance with strategic goals, so they 

can avoid pursuing more products than 

they can afford and optimize return on 

investment.



Continually make go/no-go 

decisions to rebalance the 

portfolio

Reviews should be scheduled (1) annually 

to consider proposed changes, (2) as new 

opportunities are identified, (3) whenever a 

program breaches its objectives, and (4) 

after investments are completed. 

Information gathered during these reviews 

should be used to adjust and balance the 

portfolio to achieve strategic outcomes.

◔

Legend: ●DHS policy reflects key practices; ◔ DHS policy minimally reflects key practices;

〇 DHS policy does not reflect key practices.

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data and commercial best practices for portfolio management.

Note: Apps. I and II present a more detailed description of our key portfolio management practices 

and how we assessed DHS’s resource allocation guidance.
 

Page 16 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

PA&E officials acknowledge that DHS’s resource allocation guidance 

should be updated to better reflect key portfolio management practices, 

and we found that DHS’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) is well 

positioned to help with these updates. In April 2013, DHS’s CIO issued a 

Portfolio Governance ConOps that reflects almost all of our key portfolio 

management practices. The Portfolio Governance ConOps is intended to 

minimize duplication and improve the alignment of DHS’s Information 

Technology (IT) investments with the department’s strategic goals. 

Among other things, the Portfolio Governance ConOps establishes that 

DHS should (1) use standard assessment criteria, and (2) continually 

rebalance its portfolio. Although the Portfolio Governance ConOps was 

initially developed to help manage IT acquisitions, PA&E officials believe 

it should be integrated into DHS’s broader portfolio management process 

as part of the IILCM initiative. These ConOps, if adopted and 

implemented more broadly, could enhance DHS’s resource allocation 

guidance, and help the department optimize the return on its investments 

as it manages department-wide acquisition funding issues.

DHS’s 30 percent acquisition funding gap suggests that the department’s 

leadership has not effectively prioritized its acquisition funding needs, 

even though the department’s resource allocation guidance fully reflects 

this particular key practice. Additionally, the department is poorly 

prepared to manage its affordability challenges and mitigate the resulting 

effects of funding instability. DHS is pursuing the IILCM to better prioritize 

its acquisition funding needs through an enhanced management 

structure, but as this initiative is currently a pilot and senior DHS officials 

do not expect it to be fully implemented in the near term, it is too soon to 

tell how effective it will be.

The IILCM is intended to improve the flow of information between four 

different bodies—some proposed and some already established—

responsible for strategic direction, requirements reviews, resource 

allocation, and program governance. As envisioned, the Department 

Strategy Council would be responsible for prioritizing DHS’s strategic 

goals; the Capabilities and Requirements Council (CRC) would translate 

these strategic goals into operational requirements; and the Program 

Review Board (PRB) would allocate resources to programs to meet CRCdefined operational requirements. These first three bodies would be 

responsible for making decisions across DHS’s portfolio of investments, 

which includes major acquisitions. The fourth body, the Acquisition 

Review Board (ARB), would oversee how individual acquisition programs 

use PRB-allocated resources to acquire new capabilities.

FUNDING INSTABILITY IMPACT

Program Name: IT Infrastructure

Component: ICE

Program Description: Secures the IT 

environment, and improves information 

sharing

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $4.4B

Effects of Funding Instability: Caused 

delays and impaired the program’s mission 

goals; prevented updates and maintenance of 

equipment reaching the end of its useful life

cycle

DHS Leadership Has Not 

Effectively Prioritized 

Acquisition Funding 

Needs, and It Is Too Soon 

to Tell if DHS’s Proposed 

Solution Will Address 

Existing Issues
 

Page 17 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 6 sets forth the anticipated roles and responsibilities for each 

governance body and areas where we identified existing gaps based on 

DHS guidance or key portfolio management practices.

Figure 6: GAO-Identified Opportunities for Governance Bodies in DHS’s IILCM Initiative

Our observations on each of these management areas are further 

delineated below.

DHS’s Office of Policy will be the executive agent for the Department 

Strategy Council once it is established. Currently, DHS’s PPBE Operating 

Handbook instructs the Office of Policy to issue Integrated Planning 

Guidance (IPG) each year outlining the DHS Secretary’s policy and 

planning priorities for 5-year budget time frames, such as fiscal years 

2014 through 2018. The IPG is intended to be the key product developed 

in the planning phase of PPBE, and should provide general risk 

management guidance for prioritizing programming and budget proposals 

within the department. We found the Office of Policy did not produce an 

IPG during the fiscal year 2015 budget cycle. The Assistant Secretary for

Strategy, Planning, Analysis & Risk explained the Office of Policy did not 

do so because the fiscal year 2015 planning guidance did not vary greatly 

Strategic Direction
 

Page 18 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

from the previous year. Under the IILCM, the Department Strategy 

Council would be responsible for endorsing IPGs annually, and the 

Deputy Secretary would be responsible for approving them. Annually 

updated IPGs could help components prioritize their activities in a 

constrained budget environment and help mitigate the negative effects of 

funding instability by focusing components on DHS leadership’s highest 

priorities.

DHS established the Joint Requirements Council (JRC) in 2003 to identify 

crosscutting opportunities and common requirements among DHS 

components and help determine how DHS should use its resources. The 

JRC stopped meeting in 2006 after the council’s chair was assigned to 

other duties within the department, and in 2008, we recommended the 

council be reinstated.19 DHS concurred, stating that the CRC would 

replace the JRC, but progress has been slow. In June 2013, DHS initiated 

a CRC pilot to consider tradeoffs across acquisition programs within the 

department’s cybersecurity portfolio. However, this pilot was limited in 

scope and did not include a range of tradeoffs across multiple functional 

portfolios. For example, the CRC did not consider whether cybersecurity 

investments are a higher priority than investments in domain awareness 

or law enforcement functions, in accordance with key portfolio 

management practices.

 

19GAO-09-29. 

Requirements Reviews

FUNDING INSTABILITY IMPACT

Program Name: Non-Intrusive Inspection

Systems 

Component: CBP

Program Description: Provides technology 

to inspect large volumes of traffic at the 

border and quickly detect a wide range of 

contraband 

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $3.1B 

Effects of Funding Instability: Caused 

delays that may prevent deployment to new 

ports; program may not be able to recapitalize 

technology or meet all requirements 
 

Page 19 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

PA&E officials identified the department’s PRB as DHS’s main forum for 

prioritizing resource allocations, but we found that the PRB has generally 

delegated acquisition funding decisions to the components. The PRB, 

established in March 2008, is chaired by DHS’s Deputy Secretary and is 

composed of senior representatives from each DHS component. During 

the programming phase of PPBE, the PRB meets to review funding

issues selected by DHS leadership, such as aircraft procurements 

spanning multiple components.20 These reviews inform the DHS 

Secretary’s and Deputy Secretary’s resource allocation decisions. 

However, we found that DHS rarely adjusts funding levels for major 

acquisition programs through these resource allocation decisions. 

Instead, acquisition funding decisions are generally delegated to the 

components, which are expected to independently manage their funding 

gaps. For example, in 2012, DHS conducted several portfolio reviews in 

preparation for a PRB meeting focused on DHS’s major investments, but 

the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary ultimately decided not to hold 

this PRB meeting; a forum of component-level management officials was 

convened in its place. With its department-wide perspective and highranking membership, the PRB could be well suited to prioritize 

investments department-wide, in accordance with key portfolio 

management practices. For example, the PRB could recommend 

tradeoffs that maximize DHS’s opportunities to achieve its strategic goals 

and minimize the negative effects of DHS’s acquisition funding gap. 

PA&E officials noted that, ultimately, the department’s new Secretary and 

Deputy Secretary, who were sworn in on December 23, 2013, will be

responsible for any adjustments to PRB reviews.

 

20In May 2013, the DHS Office of Inspector General reported that the department did not 

fully coordinate the acquisition of H-60 helicopters used by the Coast Guard and CBP. 

See DHS’ H-60 Helicopter Programs, OIG-13-89 REVISED (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 

2013). 

Resource Allocation

FUNDING INSTABILITY IMPACT

Program Name: Land Border Integration

Component: CBP

Program Description: Provides end users 

advanced information that enhances 

intelligence and targeting 

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $2.2B

Effects of Funding Instability: Delayed 

technology deployments that would improve 

tracking of pedestrians and outbound traffic 
 

Page 20 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

DHS’s ARB, which was established in November 2008, is responsible for 

acquisition program governance, and DHS guidance states that it shall 

review, among other things, the affordability of all major acquisition 

programs.21 However, this board has rarely directed programs to make 

affordability tradeoffs, even in light of the department’s 30 percent funding 

gap for its major acquisitions. The ARB is responsible for reviewing major 

acquisition programs for proper management, oversight, accountability, 

and alignment with the department’s strategic functions at ADEs and 

other meetings as needed, such as program health reviews or status 

updates. The ARB is generally chaired by the USM or Deputy Secretary, 

and is comprised of individuals who manage the department’s mission 

objectives, resources, and contracts, including the CFO and Chief 

Procurement Officer, the Component Acquisition Executive responsible 

for the program being reviewed, and user representatives from the 

component sponsoring the capability. Nonetheless, we found that the 

board rarely recommended tradeoffs individual programs could make to 

improve their affordability, by modifying requirements, for example. The 

ARB met 13 times in fiscal year 2013, but it only directed programs to 

make affordability tradeoffs twice. In one instance, the ARB directed the 

Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter program to revise its acquisition 

plan and program baseline so they were consistent with the Coast 

Guard’s funding plans. In another, the ARB directed CBP to adjust 

multiple programs in accordance with department-directed fiscal 

reductions. However, these instances were exceptions. Going forward, 

the ARB meetings could be effective venues for assessing affordability 

tradeoffs within specific programs, providing DHS leadership 

opportunities to proactively address the department’s major acquisition 

funding gap. 

 

21MD 102 and the manual.

FUNDING INSTABILITY IMPACT

Program Name: Strategic Air and Marine 

Plan 

Component: CBP

Program Description: Recapitalizes aircraft, 

marine vessels, sensors, and supporting 

systems

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $2.1B

Effects of Funding Instability: Delayed 

aircraft deliveries, causing major delays and 

cost growth

Program Governance
 

Page 21 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

DHS has met the FYHSP reporting requirements established by law, 

including those that are based on the Department of Defense’s Future 

Years Defense Program. However, DHS has opportunities to better 

communicate its acquisition funding needs to Congress in accordance 

with best practices. Table 2 presents our assessment of DHS’s efforts to 

meet the statutory FYHSP reporting requirements over the last three

reports, produced for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Table 2: GAO Assessment of DHS’s Efforts to Meet Statutory FYHSP Reporting 

Requirements

FYHSP report requirement GAO assessment

Include the same type of 

information, organizational 

structure, and level of detail as the 

Future Years Defense Program

DHS has met this requirement, but it could better 

communicate acquisition funding needs to 

Congress, as identified below

Cover the fiscal year with 

respect to which the budget is 

submitted and at least the 4 

succeeding fiscal years

DHS has met this requirement by presenting, 

among other things, the 5-year funding plans for its 

major acquisition programs, but it has not done so 

clearly and consistently 

The total amounts of estimated 

expenditures and proposed 

appropriations are consistent 

with the amounts specified in 

program and budget information 

submitted to Congress

DHS has met this requirement, but it could enhance 

future FYHSP reports by including major acquisition 

programs’ cost estimates and identifying their 

funding gaps, if any 

Set forth the department’s 

homeland security strategy and 

explain how it correlates to 

resource allocations 

DHS has met this requirement, but it could enhance 

future FYHSP reports by clearly linking its major 

acquisition programs to the homeland security 

strategy

Submit annual report to Congress 

“at or about the same time” as the 

department’s budget request

DHS has implemented this requirement by 

establishing an internal goal of 90 days; the 

department submitted the FYHSP reports to 

Congress 93, 130, and 23 days after its budget 

submissions for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 

respectively

Source: GAO analysis of 6 U.S.C. § 454, 10 U.S.C. § 221, and fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports. 

Additionally, a 2013 Senate Report required that the fiscal year 2014 

FYHSP report present the funding plans for all major acquisitions.22

 

22S. Rep. No. 112-169, at 24-25 (2012).

The 

fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report accounted for a greater proportion of 

DHS Has Met

Statutory FYHSP 

Reporting 

Requirements, but It 

Could Better 

Communicate 

Acquisition Funding 

Needs to Congress
 

Page 22 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

major acquisition programs than prior years’ reports, but it did not account 

for all of the programs on the department’s major acquisition oversight 

list. Moving forward, DHS officials said they will work to include all of the 

programs on DHS’s major acquisition oversight list in their annual FYHSP 

reports. 

DHS met the statutory FYHSP reporting requirements for fiscal years 

2012, 2013, and 2014. These requirements were enacted in 2002 and 

went into effect in fiscal year 2005. They are largely based on the 

Department of Defense’s Future Years Defense Program, which 

communicates that department’s 5-year funding plans.23

Over the past several years, DHS has enhanced its FYHSP reports. 

Since DHS submitted the initial FYHSP report for fiscal year 2005, 

subsequent FYHSP reports have generally provided Congress an 

increasing amount of information about major acquisition programs’ 

funding plans. DHS officials attributed the FYHSP report improvements to 

several factors, including organizational maturity, an improved FYHSP 

database, and greater component accountability. However, DHS has 

additional opportunities to improve future FYHSP reports in accordance 

with best practices. We have previously established that an agency’s 

management should ensure that there is adequate communication with 

external stakeholders—such as Congress—who have a significant impact 

on the agency’s ability to achieve its goals.

However, DHS 

did not submit FYHSP reports to Congress for fiscal years 2010 and 

2011, though officials said that they circulated draft reports within the 

department and shared them with OMB. DHS officials explained that DHS 

did not submit the fiscal year 2010 report to Congress because it did not 

reflect the new administration’s priorities, and did not submit the fiscal 

year 2011 report because it did not account for the results of the 

Quadrennial Homeland Security Review taking place at that time. The 

Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is intended to outline a strategic 

framework to guide homeland security activities.

24

The following provides additional information on the reporting 

requirements and areas where DHS could enhance the information it 

provides to Congress.

 

2310 U.S.C. § 221.

24GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

Recent FYHSP Reports 

Met Statutory Reporting 

Requirements, but DHS 

Could Enhance Acquisition 

Funding Information in the 

Future
 

Page 23 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

The fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports cover the fiscal 

year with respect to which the budget is submitted and at least the 4 

succeeding fiscal years, as required by law.25 Additionally, these FYHSP 

reports generally identified 5-year funding plans for DHS’s major 

acquisition programs, accounting for planning, acquisition, maintenance, 

and personnel funding for each program. However, we found that the 

fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report did not account for all of these funding 

categories for the Coast Guard’s acquisition programs, even though the 

report states that it did. Instead, DHS officials explained that the fiscal 

year 2013 FYHSP report only accounted for the Coast Guard acquisition 

programs’ acquisition funding. It did not account for planning, 

maintenance, and personnel funding.26

The fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports’ estimated 

expenditures and proposed appropriations were consistent with the 

amounts specified in DHS’s respective budget requests, in accordance 

with statutory requirements. However, the FYHSP reports could better 

identify the gaps, if any, between major acquisition programs’ cost 

estimates and funding plans. Each year, DHS’s budget request outlines 

the department’s funding plans for the forthcoming fiscal year, which is 

the first of the 5 years included in the annual FYHSP report. For example, 

DHS’s fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report accounted for the department’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget request, as well as fiscal years 2015-18. We 

found that the proposed appropriations were consistent across the fiscal 

years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports and budget requests, 

respectively. However, the FYHSP reports did not identify how major 

acquisition programs’ annual cost estimates compared to their funding 

plans, or identify the associated funding gaps, if any. Presenting 

acquisition programs’ cost estimates in conjunction with their funding 

plans would allow Congress to identify individual programs’ funding gaps, 

and better understand how anticipated resource constraints could affect 

the department’s largest investments.

 

The fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports set forth DHS’s 

homeland security strategy and explained how it correlated to the 

department’s resource allocations, as required by law. But DHS could 

 

256 U.S.C. § 454. 

26The Coast Guard acquisition funding plan charts we present in appendix III account for 

all four funding categories. PA&E provided us the evidence necessary to correct the Coast 

Guard information presented in the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report. 

Presenting Major Acquisition 

Programs’ 5-year Funding 

Plans

Reflecting Estimated 

Expenditures and Proposed 

Appropriations in Budget 

Requests

Linking Major Acquisition 

Programs to the Homeland 

Security Strategy
 

Page 24 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

better communicate how major acquisition programs contribute to the 

homeland security strategy. None of these three reports consistently 

identified how individual acquisition programs would help DHS achieve its 

goals. DHS officials acknowledged that they could clarify the linkage 

between major acquisition programs and DHS mission goals, and said 

they are working to do so. Clearly linking individual acquisition programs 

to DHS’s mission goals would help Congress better understand how the 

department’s largest investments contribute to the homeland security 

strategy, and inform congressional decisions about appropriating limited 

resources across DHS’s major acquisition portfolio.

FYHSP reports are required by law to be submitted to Congress “at or 

about the same time” as the department’s budget request. In 

implementing this requirement, DHS officials said their goal is to submit 

the FYHSP reports to Congress no later than 90 days after the 

department’s budget request is submitted. They explained the 90-day 

goal was largely based on the level of collaboration required to gather 

and verify data from the components and OMB. Table 3 identifies when 

DHS submitted recent FYHSP reports and budget requests to Congress. 

Table 3: Dates DHS Submitted Budget Requests and FYHSP Reports to Congress 

Fiscal year 2012 2013 2014

Date of budget request February 14 February 13 April 10

Date of FYHSP report May 18 June 22 May 3

Number of days later 93 130 23

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documentation.

PA&E officials said they have not always achieved their 90-day goal 

because OMB has not provided DHS funding guidance for future fiscal 

years until a few weeks before the department’s budget is submitted to 

Congress. In accounting for this guidance, PA&E officials said they have 

traded timeliness for accuracy. Moving forward, DHS officials said that 

they are working with headquarters and component officials to provide 

OMB a draft FYHSP earlier in the annual budget cycle.

Submitting FYHSP Reports in 

a Timely Manner
 

Page 25 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

DHS’s fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report did not account for all of the 

department’s major acquisition programs in accordance with a 2013 

Senate Report requirement. However, it did account for a greater 

proportion of programs than previous FYHSP reports, and PA&E officials 

said they intend to include all major acquisition programs in future FYHSP 

reports. Figure 7 identifies the proportion of major acquisition programs 

identified in the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports.

Figure 7: Proportion of Major Acquisition Programs Identified in Recent FYHSP 

Reports

PA&E officials responsible for producing the annual FYHSP reports said 

that they previously excluded major acquisition programs that the USM 

included on the department’s major acquisition oversight list because the 

programs (1) provided services, (2) had not yet been formally initiated, or

(3) were expected to cost less than $300 million. Additionally, the officials 

said some of the exclusions were inadvertent omissions. The PA&E 

officials said that an internal data quality management plan was 

implemented in 2013 in an effort to improve the consistency of data 

reported through the FYHSP system. Doing so will help Congress identify 

DHS’s Fiscal Year 2014 

FYHSP Report Did Not 

Account for All Major 

Acquisition Programs, but 

Did Account for a Greater 

Proportion of Programs 

than Prior Reports
 

Page 26 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

and assess how much DHS plans to invest across its major acquisition 

portfolio and the overall affordability of the department’s multiyear funding 

plans.

Previously, we made several broad recommendations to improve DHS 

acquisition management, including a recommendation that DHS prioritize 

major acquisition programs department-wide and ensure that its 

acquisition portfolio is consistent with anticipated resource constraints. 

DHS concurred with these recommendations, and the department is 

working to address them. However, based on the funding instability we 

identified across annual FYHSP reports, it appears that short-term budget 

decisions continue to supersede a more strategic approach to prioritizing 

the department’s acquisitions. In the meantime, the CFO’s effort to 

quantify the funding gap for the major acquisition portfolio is positive, in 

that it conveys the fact that the department cannot afford the programs it 

has underway. However, this gap is likely to increase as more cost 

estimates are approved. In today’s tightened fiscal climate, DHS can no 

longer count on an increased budget to offset the risks inherent in this 

scenario. As a result, DHS’s largest acquisition programs will likely 

experience schedule slips, cost growth, and capability reductions in the 

coming years if the funding instability we have highlighted worsens.

We have identified opportunities that could help mitigate this situation,

ranging from a portfolio-based approach to the department’s resource 

allocation guidance to making proactive trade-off decisions among and 

within major programs. Within the framework of the overarching 

governance initiative that DHS leadership is piloting, such opportunities 

exist. Even though the initiative is in the relatively early stages of maturity, 

the boards and councils, comprised of senior department officials, need 

not wait for the initiative to be finalized to begin taking such actions. 

Further, while DHS’s annual FYHSP reports meet statutory requirements, 

the department could use these reports to provide Congress additional 

information about its major acquisition programs as the department works 

to address its major acquisition portfolio’s funding gap.

To enhance DHS’s resource allocation guidance, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security update the guidance to fully reflect the 

following 2 portfolio management practices:

• Establish standard assessment criteria to ensure transparency and 

comparability across alternatives, and

Conclusions

Recommendations
 

Page 27 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

• Continually make go/no-go decisions to rebalance the portfolio.

To better prioritize investments in an integrated manner and allocate 

resources accordingly, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security take the following 4 actions as DHS continues to develop, pilot, 

and implement the IILCM:

• Require the Department Strategy Council, or another body 

responsible for strategic direction, to issue Integrated Planning 

Guidance annually, in accordance with DHS guidance;

• Require the CRC, or another body responsible for requirements 

reviews, to establish priorities across functional portfolios, such as 

cybersecurity, domain awareness, and law enforcement;

• Establish that the PRB should recommend tradeoffs across DHS’s 

major acquisition portfolio to address its major acquisition funding 

gap; and

• Require the ARB to assess program-specific affordability tradeoffs at 

all of its meetings.

To better communicate acquisition funding needs to Congress, we

recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security enhance the content 

of future FYHSP reports—for fiscal years 2016-20 and beyond—by taking 

the following 3 actions:

• Present acquisition programs’ annual cost estimates and any 

anticipated funding gaps,

• Clearly link major acquisition programs to the homeland security 

strategy, and

• Include all of the programs on DHS’s major acquisition oversight list.

We provided a draft of this product to DHS for comment. In its written 

comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DHS concurred with all nine of our 

recommendations and provided estimated completion dates for eight of 

them. In one case, DHS provided evidence that it has complied with the 

recommendation and we agree. In another case, we do not believe that 

DHS’s planned action will fully address our recommendation. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 28 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

The department requested that the third recommendation—to issue 

Integrated Planning Guidance annually—be considered resolved 

because the guidance for fiscal years 2016-2020 was issued in March 

2014, while our draft report was out for comment. Because DHS had not 

issued this guidance for one year only (the fiscal year 2015 budget cycle) 

and rectified the situation the following year, we agree that the action 

meets the intent of this recommendation. 

In response to our seventh recommendation, that future FYHSP reports 

present acquisition programs’ annual cost estimates and any anticipated 

funding gaps, DHS stated that the department’s Comprehensive 

Acquisition Status Report provides the cost estimate information. 

However, our analysis of these reports found that they do not present 

acquisition programs’ cost estimates on a year-by-year basis. Rather, 

they provide a single dollar figure identifying the programs’ cost estimates

over the entirety of their respective life cycles. This presentation does not 

allow Congress to identify how the funding plans presented in the FYHSP 

report compare to the programs’ annual cost estimates and does not 

consistently inform Congress of anticipated funding gaps during the 

FYHSP-report periods. Therefore, we believe that the department will 

need to take additional steps to address this recommendation. 

DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated into the 

report as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 12 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-4841 or mackinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V. 

Michele Mackin

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

The objectives of this audit were designed to help Congress understand 

how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses multiyear funding 

plans to sustain the department’s acquisition efforts. We assessed (1) the 

prevalence of funding instability at DHS, and its effects on major 

acquisition programs, if any; (2) the extent to which DHS develops 

multiyear funding plans in accordance with key portfolio management 

practices; and (3) the extent to which DHS has complied with reporting 

requirements for its major acquisition programs’ multiyear funding plans.

For the first objective, we identified how annual funding levels for 35 of 

the department’s 40 largest acquisition programs changed across the 

fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 Future Years Homeland Security 

Program (FYHSP) reports, which present 5-year funding plans for DHS’s 

major acquisition programs. We used DHS’s fiscal year 2013 major 

acquisition oversight list to identify the 40 programs. We did not assess 5 

of those programs because DHS did not include them in two or more of 

their FYHSP reports, and thus we were unable to analyze any changes to 

funding levels over time. For the 35 programs in our scope, we produced 

charts depicting how their funding plans changed over successive FYHSP 

reports. These charts are presented in appendix III. To determine the 

reliability of the FYHSP information, we examined the data for outliers 

and obvious errors, and sent our acquisition funding plan charts to 

knowledgeable officials at DHS headquarters, the components, and 

program offices. We asked officials to identify any inaccuracies through 

written responses, and we received feedback from officials representing 

all 35 of the programs. These responses indicated that the FYHSP 

information was inaccurate for 18 of the 35 programs. We used evidence 

from DHS headquarters and the program offices to correct the acquisition 

funding plan charts for these programs. For example, the Office of 

Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) provided us the evidence 

necessary to correct the Coast Guard information presented in the fiscal 

year 2013 FYHSP report. We also collected testimonial evidence from 

officials representing all 35 of the programs in our scope to identify the 

causes and effects of the funding instability.

For the second objective, we compared the department’s resource 

allocation guidance to key practices we established in a September 2012 

report and identified any significant shortfalls.1

 

1

We established GAO’s key portfolio management practices in 

These practices are set 

forth in appendix II. Specifically, we assessed DHS Management 

GAO-12-833. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Directive Number 1330 and DHS’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 

and Execution Operating Handbook, which DHS officials identified as the 

department’s primary resource allocation guidance documents. If these 

documents reflected a key practice, we assigned the document a score of 

4 for that practice. If the document did not reflect the key practice, we 

assigned it a score of 0. We then took the average score for all the key 

practices in a particular area—as identified in appendix II—to establish an 

overall score for each key practice area. We concluded that key practice 

areas that scored a 4 were reflected in the policy, those that scored a 1 

were minimally reflected, and those that scored a 0 were not reflected. 

We subsequently met with officials from PA&E to discuss our analysis, 

identify relevant sections of the documents that we had not yet accounted 

for, and solicit their thoughts on those key practices that were not 

reflected in the policy. Additionally, we interviewed acquisition and 

financial management officials at DHS headquarters and nine component 

agencies sponsoring 39 of DHS’s 40 largest acquisition programs to 

understand DHS’s process for developing multiyear funding plans.2

For the third objective, we assessed the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 

2014 FYHSP reports against requirements established in federal law and 

congressional reports. We also interviewed DHS officials responsible for 

producing the FYHSP reports to understand their interpretation of the 

FYHSP reporting requirements, and the causes of any reporting 

shortfalls.

We 

also interviewed these officials to better understand DHS’s Integrated 

Investment Life Cycle Management initiative—the department’s proposed 

solution for improving portfolio management, which is currently being 

piloted. We also reviewed (a) all acquisition decision memos from fiscal 

year 2013 to identify affordability tradeoffs made during acquisition 

reviews, (b) all funding certification memos from December 2012 through 

August 2013 to determine how DHS applied the funding certification 

requirement, and (c) summary documentation of all acquisition-related 

guidance issued through the fiscal year 2014 resource allocation decision 

memos.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to April 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 

2

We did not interview acquisition and financial management officials from the Office of 

Health Affairs because it only sponsored 1 of DHS’s 40 largest acquisition programs: 

BioWatch. However, we did collect testimonial evidence from the BioWatch program office 

directly, and that information is included in our analysis.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Key Portfolio Management 

Practices

Page 32 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

To help determine the extent to which DHS develops multiyear funding 

plans in accordance with key portfolio management practices, we 

assessed the department’s resource allocation guidance using key 

practices we established in September 2012 and identified any significant 

shortfalls.1

Clearly define and empower leadership

These portfolio management practices—organized into four 

key practice areas—can improve outcomes when managing a portfolio of 

multiple acquisition programs. The key portfolio management practices 

are presented below.

• Those responsible for product investment decisions and oversight 

should be clearly identified and held accountable for outcomes

• Portfolio managers should be empowered to make decisions about 

the best way to invest resources

• Portfolio managers should be supported with cross-functional teams 

composed of representatives from key functional areas

Establish standard assessment criteria, and demonstrate 

comprehensive knowledge of the portfolio

• Specific criteria should be used to ensure transparency and 

comparability across alternatives

• Investments should be ranked and selected using a disciplined 

process to assess the costs, benefits, and risks of alternative products

• Knowledge should encompass the entire portfolio, including needs, 

gaps, and how to best meet the gaps

Prioritize investments by integrating the requirements, acquisition, 

and budget processes

• Requirements, acquisition, and budget processes should be 

connected to promote stability and accountability

• Organizations should use an integrated approach to prioritize needs 

and allocate resources, so they can avoid pursuing more products 

than they can afford, and optimize return on investment

 

1

GAO-12-833. 

Appendix II: Key Portfolio Management 

Practices 
Appendix II: Key Portfolio Management 

Practices

Page 33 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

• Resource allocation across the portfolio should align with strategic 

goals/objectives, and investment review policy should use long-range 

planning

Continually make go/no-go decisions to rebalance the portfolio

• Program requirements should be reviewed annually to make 

recommendations on proposed changes/descoping options

• As potential new products are identified, portfolios should be 

rebalanced based on those that add the most value

• If project estimates breach established thresholds, the product should 

be immediately reassessed within the context of the portfolio to 

determine whether it is still relevant and affordable

• Agencies should use information gathered from post-implementation 

reviews of investments, as well as information learned from other 

organizations, to fine-tune the investment process and the portfolios 

to shape strategic outcomes
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 34 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

To help determine the prevalence of funding instability at DHS, and its 

effects on major acquisition programs, if any, we identified how annual 

funding levels for 35 of the department’s 40 largest acquisition programs 

changed across the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports, 

which present 5-year funding plans for DHS’s major acquisition programs. 

We did not assess the 5 remaining programs because their funding plans 

were not included in at least two FYHSP reports, and thus we were 

unable to analyze any changes to funding levels over time. The funding 

plans account for planning, acquisition, maintenance, and personnel

funding. DHS delineated between the four funding categories in the fiscal 

years 2012 and 2014 FYHSP reports, but did not delineate between them 

in the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report.

We used the three FYHSP reports to produce charts depicting how the 

funding plans changed for all 35 of the programs. To determine the 

reliability of the FYHSP information, we examined the data for outliers 

and obvious errors, and sent our acquisition funding plan charts to 

knowledgeable officials at DHS headquarters, the components, and 

program offices. We asked officials to identify any inaccuracies through 

written responses, and we received feedback from officials representing 

all 35 of the programs. These responses indicated that the FYHSP 

information was inaccurate for 18 of the 35 programs. We used evidence 

from DHS headquarters and the program offices to correct the acquisition 

funding plan charts for these programs. For example, PA&E provided us 

the evidence necessary to correct the Coast Guard information presented 

in the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report.

The acquisition funding plan charts are presented below. They present a 

unique value for each fiscal year and FYHSP report. Table 4 explains 

what each value represents in terms of planned, requested, enacted, and 

revised enacted funding levels.

Table 4: Planned, Requested, Enacted, and Revised Enacted Funding Levels Presented in the Acquisition Funding Plan 

Charts

FYHSP report Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Fiscal years 2012-2016 Requested Planned Planned Planned Planned

Fiscal years 2013-2017 Enacted Requested Planned Planned Planned

Fiscal years 2014-2018 Revised enacted Enacted Requested Planned Planned

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan 

Charts
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 35 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Customs and Border Figure 8: Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)

Protection (CBP)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 36 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 9: Border Patrol Facilities
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 37 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 10: Facilities Management & Engineering (FM&E) Tactical Infrastructure
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 38 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 11: Land Border Integration (LBI)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 39 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 12: Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Systems Program
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 40 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 13: Strategic Air and Marine Plan (STAMP)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 41 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 14: Mobile Assets Program (MAP)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 42 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Office of the Chief Figure 15: Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN)

Information Officer (OCIO)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 43 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 16: Infrastructure Transformation Program (ITP)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 44 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 17: Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning (Risk MAP) Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

(FEMA)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 45 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 18: IT Infrastructure Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 46 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

National Protection and Figure 19: National Cybersecurity and Protection System (NCPS)

Programs Directorate 

(NPPD)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 47 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 20: Next Generation Network Priority Service (NGN-PS) 
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 48 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 21: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT) 
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 49 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Office of Health Affairs Figure 22: BioWatch Gen-3 

(OHA)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 50 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 23: National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) 

Facility

Science and Technology 

(S&T)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 51 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 24: National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts 

Page 52 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 25: Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 53 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 26: Information Technology Infrastructure Program (ITIP)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 54 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 27: Passenger Screening Program (PSP) 
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 55 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 28: Secure Flight
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 56 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 29: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing (TWIC)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 57 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 30: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR)

United States Coast 

Guard (USCG)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 58 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 31: Fast Response Cutter (FRC)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 59 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 32: Long Range Surveillance Aircraft (HC-130H/J)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 60 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 33: HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 61 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 34: HH-60 Conversion Projects
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 62 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 35: HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects 
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 63 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 36: Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 64 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 37: National Security Cutter (NSC)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 65 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 38: Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 66 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 39: Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 67 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 40: Rescue 21
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 68 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Figure 41: Response Boat-Medium (RB-M)
Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts

Page 69 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

United States Citizenship Figure 42: Transformation

and Immigration Services 

(USCIS)
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 70 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 71 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 72 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 73 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 74 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 75 GAO-14-332 Homeland Security Acquisitions 

Michele Mackin, (202) 512-4841 or mackinm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Katherine Trimble (Assistant 

Director), Nathan Tranquilli (Analyst-in-Charge), Peter Anderson, Stephen 

V. Marchesani, Mara McMillen, Ellen Ramachandran, Sylvia Schatz, and 

Levine Thomas made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

121110
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.